Best cases - National Enquirer Panel

Many UFO researchers have complained about ridicule of UFO witnesses, arguing that a fear of ridicule has resulted in many UFO witnesses failing to
report their sightings.

What if, partially in an attempt to overcome that fear and obtain further reports, a company were prepared to offer a reward of $1,000,000 for proof
that UFOs come from outer space and are not natural phenomena?

What if the same company were prepared to offer $10,000 for the best report submitted each year, even though not the proof required for the $1,000,000
reward?

Anyone involved with UFO research for a few years must have wondered how much more progress would be made but for the constant bickering between
researchers and UFO groups. What if the company that was prepared to offer a million dollars had also managed to persuade the heads of the three most
influential UFO groups (say, NICAP, APRO and MUFON) to put aside long standing feuds to work together, and join forces in screening reports submitted
for the $1,000,000 prize?

What if the same company were prepared to provide funds to investigate reports screened by those two groups and/or provide financial rewards for
investigators for performing thorough investigations of interesting cases?

What if the same company managed to get several of the most respected scientists involved in UFO research, individuals such as Dr J Allen Hynek, to
agree to look at the best reports selected as a result of that screening? If those scientists were put in a room together and asked to agree on the
top UFO cases, which cases would be nominated? This would involve researchers reaching agreement on the relevant list of cases (i.e. producing a true
“consensus” list), and thus can be contrasted to the approach of taking a poll of UFO researchers (as to which see Parts 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).

For good measure, what if the same company also managed to persuade to persuade several highly respectable members of the legal establishment (such as
a former Supreme Court Justice and former Attorney General, and a former New York Court of Appeals Judge) to review any cases considered by the panel
of scientists to be a UFO that is not a natural phenomenon and came from outer space?

A pipe dream?

No. It has already happened.

It’s just a shame that the relevant company was “The National Enquirer”…

All this happened in the 1970s, when the National Enquirer established a “blue-ribbon panel” to consider UFO reports. The questions about “what
would happen if…?” can be considered in the light of that experience.

Unfortunately, the answer in that case was:

(1) The Panel has largely been forgotten by UFO researchers.

(2) Disappointingly little happened as a result of the Panel. Given the resources available to the Panel, and the individuals associated with it,
this may be viewed by many ufologists as serious cause for concern. Most efforts within ufology have far, far less support than the Panel. It is
possible, however, that the National Enquirer’s reputation was a disadvantage which drastically affected the efforts of the Panel.

Given the diversity of cases included within the lists of the “best” cases produced by various researchers (see Part 3 of this article), it might
be considered a fairly obvious step to attempt to get UFO proponents to agree between themselves on a list of the “best” cases to be put before
sceptics. The National Enquirer’s Panel was one of very few such attempts.

The involvement of the National Enquirer in an effort that, prima facie, involved commiting significant financial resources and obtaining the
assistance of high calibre individuals (both from inside and outside the UFO community) is surprising given the perception of that publication. That
perception is reflected in comments made by several sceptics and by pro-UFO authors:

(b) Terry Hansen, author of “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (2000), has commented that the National Enquirer is
“normally perceived as a just sleazy tabloid…” (see Footnote 10.02). Terry Hansen also commented that: “[The National Enquirer has a]
reputation for over-the-top senationalism and dubious veracity … Although the elite news media rarely provides serious, in-depth coverage of the UFO
issue, the Enquirer was for many years uniquely eager to publish UFO stories, often under screaming, front-page headlines. The juxtaposition of
sensational, even ridiculous Enquirer headlines alongside the more restrained (if not openly contemptuous) coverage of the New York Times or Wall
Street Journal, has served to amplify the disreputable public image of UFOs …” (see Footnote 10.03).

Anyone interested in the role of the “The National Enquirer” in ufological history may be interested in the 9 page discussion of that publication
by Terry Hansen in his “The Missing Times : News Media Complicity in the UFO Cover-Up” (see Footnote 10.04). Unfortunately, as with virtually all
UFO books, the National Enquirer’s Panel is not discussed within those pages. However, that discussion does include a number of interesting
assertions, including a quote attributed to Bob Pratt “Issues of the Enquirer that had a UFO story as the lead headline on page one never sold well.
Arthritis, celebrities and such always sold much better” (see Footnote 10.05). Most of the relevant discussion within that book is devoted to the
provocative, if far from convincing, suggestion that the National Enquirer’s UFO coverage was manipulated by the CIA.

The details of that Panel do not appear, to put it mildly, to be very well known within the UFO community.

The Panel is rarely referred to in pro-UFO books.

Also, while there are a number of references to the Panel online, most of the references to the Panel on pro-UFO websites are generally in the context
of discussing a specific case and merely refer to the fact that the relevant case was selected by the Panel as the best case of a specific year.

Disappointingly, a book on UFOs published by the National Enquirer itself (“UFO Report”, 1985) based on articles previously published in the
National Enquirer does not refer to the Panel. Instead, it is a rather sensationalist publication containing section titles which include the
following:

Somewhat ironically, the most detailed accounts of the Panel that I’ve seen in print have been written by UFO sceptics such as Philip J Klass and
Robert Sheaffer (see below). With the notable exception of the website operated by UFO researcher Jerry Cohen, discussion of the Panel online is
fairly limited and/or inaccurate. Jerry Cohen has commented on the difficulty in obtaining accurate information regarding the Enquirer’s Panel,
commenting that “you really can't find it anywhere” (Footnote 10.52).

Indeed, in one online debate on the UFO Updates forum, one leading UFO historian (Wendy Connors) attacked claims made by sceptics about the Panel
and:

(1) initially denied that the Panel existed, stating that claims made about its existence were "bogus", that “It does not exist” and that "None
of these people [on the ‘blue ribbon panel’] are ever named by the CSICOP cult because this blue ribbon panel does not exist" (see Footnote
10.06); then

(2) after being challenged, she accepted that the Panel existed, but claimed that "but it was not composed of top-notch scientists as claimed by
CSICOP. The reasoning is quite simple. No legitimate scientist would align themselves with a gossip tabloid because it would endanger their
credibility and possible cause for loss of research funding. The ‘blue ribbon panel’ is the typical sham..." (see Footnote 10.07).

Fortunately, due to very generous assistance from the AFU (an organisation which is undervalued by many within ufology, possibly because it keeps a
relatively low profile), I have been able to review copies of various relevant articles from the National Enquirer.

As detailed below, contrary to the views expressed by Wendy Connors:

(1) The Panel did exist;
(2) The National Enquirer somehow managed to attract some of the top names from within ufology, and some impressive names from outside ufology. The
Panel involved participation by Dr J Allen Hynek and representatives of APRO, NICAP and MUFON. It even involved a former Attorney General of the
USA.

On 12 March 1972, the National Enquirer featured an article entitled “Enquirer Offers $50,000 Reward for UFO Proof” (see Footnote 10.08). That
article stated that a reward of $50,000 would be paid by the National Enquirer to “the first person who can prove that an Unidentified Flying Object
(UFO) came from outer space and is not a natural phenomenon”.

That article also gave the first details of the National Enquirer’s UFO Panel. It reported that “Five of the country’s top scientists have been
named to a special ENQUIRER investigate panel which will examine the UFO evidence submitted by our readers”.

That article indicated that “the editors” would screen the evidence and “the best ones” would be presented to The Enquirer’s
“investigative panel composed of five of the country’s top scientists”. $50,000 would be awarded to a person submitting evidence if “it is the
unanimous agreement of the panel that the Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) came from outer space and it not a natural phenomenon”. The article
stated that all evidence had to be in the hands of the editors before 1 January 1973 to qualify for the reward.

While referring to the relevant individuals as five of “the country’s top scientists” may have involved a degree of hyperbole, they were
certainly five of the country’s top scientists active in UFO research. They were:

Dr Creegan is probably the only individual on the Panel that may not be instantly familiar to most UFO researchers. He was a professor of philosophy
at the State University of New York at Albany.

Philip J Klass’ second book on UFOs contained several references to the Panel. He noted that all five members of the panel were university
professors – all with Ph. D.’s. Four of the members of the Panel were “long-time technical advisors to APRO”. (The fifth panel member was Dr
J Allen Hynek). Klass commented that it was “not, therefore, surprising that the National Enquirer characterized this illustrious group of
UFOlogists as a ‘blue-ribbon panel’ ” (see Footnote 10.09). Robert Sheaffer, the skeptical author of “The UFO Verdict” (1980), has
commented that the Panel was “dominated by APRO consultants” (see Footnote 10.10 and Footnote 10.11).

The launch of the Enquirer offer of a reward for UFO proof was briefly reported in the April 1972 issue of NICAP’s “UFO Investigator” (see
Footnote 10.12). The relevant article referred to a panel “of scientists associated with the Aerial Phenomena Organization (APRO)” and stated that
to win $50,000 “all you have to do” is prove that a UFO came from outer space and is not a natural phenomenon.

On 23 April 1972, the National Enquirer reported that the reward system had been expanded. It reported that the Enquirer had “agreed to the
panel’s suggestion at a recent meeting in Palm Beach, Fla., to make an additional award of $5,000 to the person who presents new evidence which, in
the panel’s opinion, is the most scientifically valuable, although it not considered conclusive enough to win the $50,000” (see Footnote
10.13).

On 28 May 1972, the National Enquirer featured an article indicating that the Enquirer’s “blue-ribbon UFO investigative panel” was considering
the Delphos Ring incident, following a preliminary study conducted by APRO at the request of the Enquirer. Relevant soil samples were reportedly
“baffling scientists” (see Footnote 10.14).

On 17 September 1972, the blue-ribbon Panel hit the front page of the National Enquirer, with the headline “Enquirer Blue-Ribbon Panel Investigating
UFOs Reveals… 5 AMAZING UFO SIGHTINGS”. The accompanying article referred to a meeting of the members of the panel in San Francisco and gave
details of five “promising reports selected by the panel for further investigation”. The relevant reports included an incident involving “two
pilots and 21 passengers” over Labrador, Canada in May 1953 and a case from September 1944 involving “a German soldier in World War 2 who hit a
UFO with an armor-piercing bullet fired at point-blank range” (see Footnote 10.15).

On 25 January 1973 the National Enquirer published an article with the somewhat optimistic title of “UFO Riddle May Be Solved Soon, Says Enquirer
Team of Experts” (see Footnote 10.16). Jim Lorenzen of APRO was referred to as “the consultant to the panel” and featured in a photograph of
the five members of the Panel. Despite the optimistic title of the article, and various statements by members of the Panel about the value of the
reports obtained, the article did not indicate that any of the members considered at that point that any of the reports satisfied the requirement for
the main reward of $50,000. Instead, the article reported that this issue (and the awarding of the $5,000 reward for “the claimant who has supplied
the most scientifically valuable evidence on UFOs”) would be determined at a further meeting again “early this year”. The same article included
an announcement that the Panel had agreed to extend its research through 1973. “When appropriate” the Panel would send “experienced
researchers to probe the sightings on the spot”. The Panel would decide on the distribution of $1,000 to informants that provided information on
“outstanding cases” (see Footnote 10.16).

On 23 March 1973, the Panel met in Tucson, Arizona to consider the reports that had been submitted prior to the deadline of 1 January 1973. The
results of the Panel’s deliberations were reported in the National Enquirer on 27 May 1973 in an article entitled “Enquirer Awards Kansas Family
$5,000 for Supplying the Most Scientifically Valuable UFO Evidence in 1972”. That article reported that the Panel “agreed unanimously that none of
the claims merited the $50,000”. However, four of the five members voted in favour of awarding the $5,000 award to the Johnson family for their
report of the Delphos Ring incident because “the case did supply ‘the most scientifically valuable evidence’ – even though it did NOT prove
that UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles”. Dr Robert Creegan abstained from the vote “for technical reasons”. The National Enquirer announced in
the same article that it would continue its offer of the $50,000 reward for “the first person who can prove that an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO)
came from outer space and is not a natural phenomenon”. The deadline for submissions was extended to 1 January 1974. The article also repeated that
the Panel could distribute award money of $1,000 between those judged by the Panel “to have supplied scientifically valuable evidence of recent UFO
sightings” (see Footnote 10.17). This award has been referred to by various ufologists, and has also been given as a reason by several UFO skeptics
for their consideration of the case. See, for example, the references to the award by Philip J Klass (see Footnote 10.18) and Robert Sheaffer (see
Footnote 10.19 and Footnote 10.20).

The award to the Johnson family was reported in two separate articles in the June 1973 edition of MUFON’s “Skylook” journal. An article by Norma
Short Norma Short commented that investigative reports by Ted Phillips were used by the Panel in making its decision, but that he did not share in the
prize money “which doesn’t seem right” and that the Enquirer “did not even have the courtesy to give him credit for the investigation in their
announcement of the award” (see Footnote 10.21). In very similar comments in the same edition of MUFON’s Skylook journal, Lucius Farish referred
to the 27 May 1973 edition of National Enquirer commented that “It seems to me that a portion of the prize money should have gone to Ted Phillips
… At any rate, I suppose this proves that it can be profitable to have a UFO land in your back yard!” (see Footnote 10.22).

A couple of articles followed about physical evidence being considered by the Panel, including a “mysterious” steel sphere found at Terry Matthews
near Jacksonville, Florida. (see Footnote 10.23) and a “mysterious” pice of “metal-like material” found by carpenters Harry Sjoberg and Stig
Ekberg near Stockholm, Sweden in 1958 (see Footnote 10.24).

At about this point in time, NICAP appears to have become actively involved in selecting cases for the Panel. The January 1974 issue of NICAP’s
“UFO Investigator” briefly mentions that NICAP “is presently evaluating cases for the Panel” (see Footnote 10.25). Further detail was given in
the following month’s issue of the same publication (see Footnote 10.26). According to that article, decision makers from the National Enquirer met
with APRO’s director (Jim Lorenzen) and NICAP’s President (John Acuff) at the Enquirer’s offices in Lantana, Florida to review UFO reports for
possible submission to the Enquirer's UFO panel. In addition to selecting various cases, the NICAP article indicates that:

(1) it was agreed that cases which were submitted for the Enquirer's UFO panel evaluation would “now receive funding from the National Enquirer to
insure complete analysis”;

(2) somewhat surprisingly given the number of references in the ufological literature to the long-standing feud between NICAP and APRO (particularly
between Donald Keyhoe and Coral Lorenzen), the NICAP article states that “Of equal importance is the resolve by both Mr. Lorenzen and Mr. Acuff to
continue to seek means for mutual cooperation between NICAP and APRO”. Perhaps the National Enquirer should not receive too much credit for getting
APRO and NICAP to agree to work together, since the two groups had in fact previously indicated an intention to attempt to improve relations, as
reported in the June 1972 edition of NICAP’s “UFO Investigator” (see Footnote 10.27).

The Panel met on 20 April 1974, in New Orleans, to consider “five claims, out of hundreds submitted to The ENQUIRER”. Once again, the panel
members “agreed unanimously that none of the claims merited the $50,000 award”. However, the National Enquirer article dated 23 June 1974
reporting the relevant Panel meeting indicates that the Panel members “all voted in favour” of awarding $5,000 to the four-man US Army helicopter
crew, including pilot Major Larry Coyne, involced in a UFO incident on 19 October 1973. The article indicated that the $50,000 award and award of up
to $5,000 would continue to be offered (see Footnote 10.28). This award was briefly mentioned in the July 1973 edition of MUFON’s Skylook journal
(see Footnote 10.29) and has subsequently been referred to briefly by several researchers, including by Philip J Klass. Klass referred to the award as
being a reason for giving relatively lengthy consideration to this case in his book “UFOs Explained” (1974) – see Footnote 10.30.

The same 23 June 1974 Enquirer article also indicated that reports would be screened by the Enquirer’s editors, Jim Lorenzen (international director
of APRO) and Jack Acuff (president of NICAP) and that the “best ones” would be forwarded to the five members of the Panel (see Footnote 10.28).

On 8 March 1975, the members of the screening committee (including NICAP’s President, John Acuff) submitted five cases for the Panel to review (see
Footnote 10.31). Those cases were: (1) A sighting on 30 October 1974 over Jay, Oklahoma involving 6 police officers and more than 50 other witnesses,
(2) a sighting on 21 October 1974 in western New York involving several police officers, (3) a sighting on 12 August 1974 in central New Hampshire
involving several police officers, (4) a sighting involving several pilots and others on 23 October 1974 over the San Antonio International Airport,
Texas, and (5) a sighting on 20 August 1974 over Albany, New York, involving several police officers and others.

In the summer of 1975, the $50,000 reward for “positive proof” that UFOs come from outer space and are not natural phenomena was doubled to “a
whopping” $100,000. An article published in the 3 June 1975 edition of the National Enquirer publicised the increase in the award. The same article
referred to the fact that the Panel had met in Los Angeles “recently” and had considered “five claims screened by our editors from the hundreds
submitted”. (The article indicates that claims contintued to be screened by National Enquirer editors, Jim Lorenzen of APRO and by Jack Acuff of
NICAP.) At that meeting, the five members of the panel “agreed unanimously that none of the cases merited the full reward”. However, the Panel
voted to award $500 to each of four witnesses to a “spectacular” UFO sighting over San Antonio near San Antonio International Airport, Texas
(namely to Eastern Airline pilots Jerry Noyes and Chuck Nickerson, security officer Chester Blanchard and air traffic controller Jim Stevens). The
article quotes Hynek as stating that the sighting was best of those which came before the panel and that it “confirmed the existence of the UFO
phenomena beyond doubt” (see Footnote 10.32).

(I note in passing that this incident, in contrast to several of the earlier cases that receiving awards from the Panel, is rarely mentioned in UFO
books).

The increase in the reward from $50,000 to $100,000 was reported in the July 1975 edition of MUFON’s Skylook journal. Lucius Farish commented,
“So, if you have any crashed saucers in your backyard and you can prove (ah, there’s the rub!) they came from outer space, you can be $100,000
richer” (see Footnote 10.33).

There was an even more dramatic increase in the main reward in 1976. The reward was increased from $100,000 to the “enormous sum” of $1,000,000.
An article in the National Enquirer on 13 June 1976 reported this ten-fold increase. It also reported on a meeting of the Panel on 18/19 May 1976 in
Palm Beach, Florida to consider five cases for the top award. The Panel “felt that none of the case merited” the top award. However, the Panel
awarded the $5,000 award to those involved in the Travis Walton abduction incident. Travis Walton was awarded $2,500 while the six others that
reportedly saw the incident shared the other $2,500 (see Footnote 10.34). This award has been briefly referred to by several ufologists, and also
mentioned by skeptic Robert Sheaffer (see Footnote 10.35 and Footnote 10.36).

In addition to announcing the dramatic increase in the main reward to $1,000,000 the same article also announced two other developments.

Firstly, any claims unanimously viewed by the Panel as being a UFO that was not a natural phenomenon and came from outer space would be submitted to a
Judicial Review Board for “final judgment”. The $1,000,000 reward would be awarded if “the two judges agreed that the award recommended by the
Blue Ribbon Panel is correct”.

The calibre of individual that the National Enquirer managed to persuade to agree to participate in the “Judicial Review Board” may be considered
rather surprising. The article stated that the relevant two judges were:

(1) Tom C. Clark : Justice Clark “was an Associate Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court from 1949 to 1967 and Attorney General of the U. S. from 1945
to 1949”. [For the wikipedia entry on Tom Campbell Clark see Footnote 10.37].

(2) Francis Bergan : Justice Bergan “was Associate Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, from 1963 to 1972, with a
long and distinguished career before his retirement”. [For a brief biography of Justice Bergan see Footnote 10.38].

Secondly, the National Enquirer doubled the award for the “most scientifically valuable evidence on UFOs” (though not qualifying for the main
reward) submitted each year, from $5,000 to $10,000.

A further article in the National Enquirer, dated 19 October 1976, reported on the Mona Stafford, Kentucky abduction incident. That article indicated
that the $1,000,000 reward was still available and that the offer was “good until” 30 June 1977 (see Footnote 10.39).

The National Enquirer achieved yet another surprising coup in 1977. It had already succeeded in getting APRO and NICAP to cooperate in assessing the
“best” UFO cases (despite the long-standing feud between the leaders of APRO and NICAP) and in 1977 it managed to add representatives of MUFON to
the selection process (despite the feud between the leaders of APRO and MUFON).

In the May 1977 issue of the MUFON Journal, Dennis Hauck reported upon the expansion of the National Enquirer Panel to include MUFON representatives
(see Footnote 10.40). Dr John L Warren (MUFON State Director for New Mexico and a consultant in Physics) joined the National Enquirer’s Panel.
Also, John F Schuessler (Deputy Director of MUFON and a mechanical engineer) joined the mini-panel that screened cases for the Blue Ribbon Panel,
along with representatives of APRO, NICAP and the National Enquirer. These appointments were reported to have been the result of “many months of
consultation between Bob Pratt, John Cathcart, and Brian Wells of the Enquirer Staff and Walt Andrus, International Director of MUFON”. Bob Pratt
has stated that John Schuessler represented MUFON instead of Walt Andrus because “Walt and Jim Lorenzen despised each other” (see Footnote
10.45).

Interestingly, Dennis Hauck commented that these appointments “rectify a sensitive situation and give full recognition to the Mutual UFO Network,
Inc as one of the major UFO organisations in the world” (see Footnote 10.40). That comment may imply that some within MUFON viewed the previous lack
of involvement of MUFON to have been some sort of snub.

The first prize after MUFON representatives began participating in the Panel deliberations was made in relation to the Tehran jet intercept case of
September 1976. An article in the National Enquirer reported that the Panel had awarded $5,000 to six (unnamed) Iranians in relation to this
sighting, for the most scientifically valuable UFO case “reported in 1977”. The reference to “1977” appears to have been an error, since the
Tehran case was in fact reported in 1976 and the Panel’s prize for the best case in 1977 was in fact reported in a subsequent edition of the
National Enquirer (dated 13 June 1978). Unfortunately for the relevant Iranian individuals, they were not permitted to accept the cash award which was
instead awarded to an Iranian charity similar to the Red Cross. The relevant cheque was accepted on behalf of that charity by Iran’s ambassador to
the USA (Ardeshir Zahedi) at the Iranian Embassy in Washington. The 6 Iranians had to accept the consolation prize of an engraved plaque.

The same article in the National Enquirer reported that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark had died, creating a vacancy on the National
Enquirer’s “Judicial Review Board” which had been filled by another “outstanding jurist” – Emilio Nunez “retired Associate Justice in
the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court” who reportedly had “had a long and distinguished career in law”. The article once again
summarised the procedure in relation to the Panel’s deliberations, indicating that all evidence sent in would be screened by the editors and the
“more promising entries” would be sent to Jim Lorenzen (international director of APRO), Jack Acuff (president of NICAP) and John Schuessler
(deputy director of MUFON). The claims with “the best evidence” would be submitted to the Panel, and if the Panel recommended payment of the $1
million award then they would pass the case on to the Judicial Review Board “for final judgment” which would determine if the Panel’s award
“is correct”.

On 13 June 1978, the National Enquirer reported (see Footnote 10.41) that a prize of $7,500 for the most scientifically valuable evidence of 1977 had
been awarded to five policemen in Memphis, Tennessee, who reportedly observed a large triangular UFO over that city on 17 May 1977.

On 29 May 1979, the National Enquirer reported (see Footnote 10.42) on awards totalling $9,500 for the UFO cases which provided the most
scientifically valuable evidence of 1978.

On 27 May 1980, the National Enquirer reported (see Footnote 10.43) that an award of $2,000 for the best UFO case of 1979 was shared between UFO
research Allan Hendry and Minnesotta deputy sheriff Val Johnson. An award of an additional $2,000 was presented to Dr Bruce Maccabee for his
investigation into the New Zealand UFO film.

What happened to the Panel after May 1980? Emails to John Schuessler (one of the individuals that had been on the Panel and is still alive) and MUFON
have, about a year on, not resulted in further information. UFO researcher Jerry Cohen has, however, made available some information from Bob Pratt,
one of the National Enquirer reporters involved in reporting UFO sightings, in relation to Pratt’s knowledge of the Panel from “late 1975”
onwards (see Footnote 10.45).

Comments by Bob Pratt in relation to the continued existence of the Panel after 1976 include the following:

(1) The Panel continued until “1980 or 1981”, when “the Enquirer formally abandoned the reward offer and disbanded the Blue Ribbon panel and the
mini-panel”;

(2) The meetings to screen the reports to be submitted to the Panel consisted “of representatives of the three main UFO organizations, would meet
once or twice a year with me and my editor to help select those cases that would be considered by the big panel. No one got paid anything but the
Enquirer took care of all arrangements and all expenses for visits to south Florida or wherever the panel would meet -- such places as New York, Salt
Lake City, Las Vegas, and even Mexico City)”.

(3) Dr Hynek quit the Panel “after he became convinced that the Enquirer wasn't too interested in funding research”. Although NICAP had reported
that the Enquirer had agreed to provide funds for investigations, Pratt has commented “If such agreements had been made, they were no longer in
effect when I got involved in late 1975”. Pratt has stated that Hynek asked Pratt’s advice “on whether he should stay on the panel. I told him I
didn't think the Enquirer was serious about funding any research and he quit the panel. He had agreed to participate in the beginning in the hope
that the Enquirer would provide some research funds. It certainly could have afforded to do so (it would spend great gobs of money to get stories of
all kinds) but the publisher, Gene Pope, wasn't all that interested”.

It should be noted that if Hynek quit the Panel because the Enquirer would not fund research, his timing may have been poor because the Enquirer
eventually started paying some of its financial award to investigators (see discussion above of the 27 May 1980 edition of the National Enquirer and
the financial awards for 1979 cases).

One of the longest discussions of the National Enquirer in the MUFON Journal appeared in the February 1984 issue, in an article by Walt Andrus
entitled “The Enquirer and MUFON” (see Footnote 10.46). The article acknowledged that the National Enquirer’s Panel no longer existed, but did
not state when it was disbanded. The article was about other actual and potential cooperation between MUFON and the National Enquirer. For the first
time in the MUFON Journal, the article had a very cautious, even defensive, tone regarding co-operation with the National Enquirer. The article
stated that “Since Bob Pratt left the National Enquirer, some of us have had serious doubts about the authenticity and integrity of some of the UFO
stories that have been published under various reporters names”. However, despite those “serious doubts”, Walt Andrus indicated that MUFON
would be co-operating with a National Enquirer reporter by providing documentation on the “four best current cases that MUFON members had
investigated but which had not been previously published in the Enquirer”. Walt Andrus stated that the four cases selected had all been published
in the MUFON UFO Journal “over the past few years” and gave the following titles: “Mother and Child Abducted in Texas”, “Pilot Encounters
Ringed UFO”, “Missouri Landing Trace Case”, and “Repeated Sighting of Domed Disc in Michigan”. Due to the “serious doubts” regarding
the National Enquirer, MUFON imposed several conditions upon this cooperation. Firstly, Walt Andrus required that nothing could be published until
“every word was cleared with him” to ensure the accuracy of the article. Secondly, to expand the membership/subscription base of MUFON, Walt
Andrus required that the article include the complete address of MUFON (including a code added to the zip code, to track the number of responses).
Andrus stated that “the number of new and competent field investigators joining the MUFON team will be the ultimate criterion”. He went on to
state that members of the MUFON Executive Committee “recognize that there is a gamble in cooperating with the National Enquirer” but expressed the
view that “the integrity of the tabloid and its management is also at stake in the eyes of the UFO community” and that “my experience to date
has been very positive and congenial”. (The anticipated article subsequently appeared in the 10 April 1984 edition of the National Enquirer, see
Footnote 10.47).

Andrus ended his article in the MUFON Journal with a paragraph calling for views from readers of the MUFON Journal concerning future cooperation with
the National Enquirer. Several responses were published in subsequent issues of the MUFON Journal.

Although not directly relevant to a consideration of the National Enquirer Blue Ribbon Panel (since that Panel had disbanded by this point), I think
that the contents of two of those responses are worth noting since they indicate the diversity of views regarding cooperation with the National
Enquirer.

Firstly, a letter to the editor from Joe Kirk Thomas of Los Angeles, California opposing cooperation with the National Enquirer was published in the
May-June 1984 edition of the MUFON Journal (see Footnote 10.48). In an articulate and well-argued letter, Mr Thomas expressed the view that “the
wrong audience was targeted” and asked “why would we court a relatively undereducated audience?”. He suggested the readers of the National
Enquirer were largely “middle aged or older housewives of fairly low educational background” and “a rather credulous lot”. Given these
characteristics, “while such a population could increase Journal circulation, it is unlikely that it would provide us with new, serious
ufologists”. Mr Thomas went on to state “I can guarantee that academics do not place the Enquirer very high on their readings lists!”.

Mr Thomas contended as follows: “Like most of the supermarket tabloids, the National Enquirer has a reputation for sensationalism and fabrication.
It may be unfortunate, but it is true that ‘you are known by the company you keep’. Mixing UFOs with such circus favourities as Jackie Onassis and
Princess Di can only trivialize ufology, and reinforce the sceptical attitudes of many citizens. It is a poor vehicle for public education of any
type”.

Mr Thomas concluded that MUFON should “diligently pursue” publication of articles in magazines, but that even if MUFON could find no national
publications willing to present MUFON material “I think it is a very serious error to cooperate in any way with the tabloids. It is the wrong type
of publicity and can only cause embarrassment and division within our organization”.

Secondly, in the October 1984 issue of the MUFON Journal, a view supporting the MUFON directors was expressed. Cliff Henderson of Sunnyvale,
California, did not take issue with Mr Thomas’ characterisation of the National Enquirer’s readership. Instead, Mr Henderson relied upon the large
circulation of the National Enquirer and stated that the relevant housewives could write to their Senate and House members, providing the Journal with
an increased “clout” (see Footnote 10.49).

The conflicting views expressed in those two letters to the MUFON Journal give some indicatation of the range of potential strategies that could be
adopted for promoting ufology (although such matters are rarely discussed in the UFO literature).

The National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel is rarely mentioned in modern discussions of ufology, even when (as happens fairly often) sceptics allege
that ufologists are never/rarely prepared to list the best cases.

There appear to be two main possibilities to explain this fact.

Most ufologists are either:

(1) unaware of the work done by National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel and those associated with it (including the considerable collaborative work by
APRO, NICAP, MUFON and several leading ufologists); or

(2) would prefer not to mention the National Enquirer, due to its image.

The former possibility is questionable given the number of references to the Panel (including express reference to the dates of some of the relevant
editions of the National Enquirer) to be found in Philip J Klass’ 1974 book “UFOs Explained” (see Footnote 10.01, Footnote 10.09, Footnote
10.18, Footnote 10.30, and Footnote 10.44), and repeated by Robert Sheaffer in his books (see Footnote 10.10, Footnote 10.11, Footnote 10.19, Footnote
10.20, Footnote 10.35, and Footnote 10.36). However, it should be noted that at least one leading UFO historian (Wendy Connors) appears to have been
unaware of the existence of the National Enquirer’s Panel (see Footnote 10.06 and Footnote 10.07). The first possibility therefore raises questions
about the familiarity of many ufologists with the most influential sceptical literature.

Several skeptics, including Philip J Klass, should be given due credit for seeking out details of a process by which involving several leading
ufologists selected the “best cases”, and for seeking to address those cases. They generally have not received due credit. It is far more common
to find allegations in the ufological literature that Klass and other skeptics have only attempted to address weak cases and have ignored the
“best” cases.

The second of the two possibility outlined above raises questions about the wisdom of the strategies adopted in the past (and currently) by leading
UFO groups. If the image of the National Enquirer’s image is such that most ufologists find it unpalatable to refer to work done in association
with that publication, then one may suggest that all the relevant collaborative work done in relation to the Blue Ribbon Panel by APRO, NICAP, MUFON
and others was basically a waste of everyone’s time and effort.

In a decade or two, will current efforts within ufology similarly appear to involve an unwise allocation of very limited resources and highly
questionable strategic judgments?

One of the few ufologists to have previously written about the National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel is Jerry Cohen. He kindly provided the
following views:

(a) “…the big problem was, _where_ it was taking place. I believe the reason little happened is because of the fact it all occurred at the
Enquirer, which mainstream scientists, or most other educated people for that matter, could not possibly take seriously, no matter who was involved.
Knowing the type publication it was, people could never trust the paper. Therefore, the fact they were published in that paper carried with it a
virtual guarantee everyone's efforts would be totally ignored and forgotten as more silliness from the Enquirer” (see Footnote 10.51).

(b) “We can easily see why skeptics would want to avoid [discussion of the Enquirer’s Panel], but what about the pro-UFO people? I'm a little
surprised here. Again, it may have something to do with people's personal agendas, or just that people missed the importance of it (because we get so
focused on our own thing, we can't see the overview), or perhaps other research might have been done that tended to diminish its importance, but I am
not aware of this … They most likely didn't focus on it because it was information from a tabloid paper which most people thought were probably
entirely dubious. Pro-UFO people probably didn't want people remembering Hynek associated with the Enquirer, for fear it would compromise the rest of
his excellent research by association.” (see Footnote 10.51).

Nicely done Isaac. I don't think I would have believed this had you not sourced everything so thoroughly!

It's really amazing the things I missed. I was born in 1978, and didn't really even start researching the ETH until about the 90's.

I suppose I fit into this category here:
"(1) unaware of the work done by National Enquirer’s Blue Ribbon Panel and those associated with it (including the considerable collaborative work
by APRO, NICAP, MUFON and several leading ufologists)"

Thank you for the education this morning. I'm pretty sure from your two posts worth of footnotes that this is one thread that is surely not an
"April Fool's' joke.

By the way, for those in England, it's still only 10:30 in the morning here in California.

I've got a feeling those of us over here haven't
seen the last of today's pranks just yet.

My office is pretty tame (thankfully) so I haven't seen any yet this morning, it's making me a bit suspicious! LOL

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.